On Feb 29, 2012, at 7:03 PM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> On 2/29/12 8:21 PM, Qrux wrote:
>>> It was me that put that in the BLFS page. Thanks for your email to BLFS
>>> dev about the problem with Bind.
>>
>> Why did we go in this circle?
>
> Because he was kindly answering your questions.
Andrew's original statement:
"Bind works fine on my computer with everything in /lib."
created a second issue (2), in the context of discussing your toolchain (1):
1) Does BIND work with your new toolchain without /lib64?
2) Does BIND work currently (wrt 7.0-release) without /lib64?
I read his statement as present-tense, and it suggested that issue (2) had not
been properly resolved in BLFS (as I had imagined it was). I sought
clarification on what 'my computer' meant.
His original statement implied that (1) was possibly moot *because* (2) was
misunderstood; i.e., BIND was *currently* working (again, from the
present-tense reading) without references to /lib64. It made me wonder whether
I had missed a --disable-shared flag or something similar. So, I asked about
his system to resolve (2)...And, that line of questioning is separate from (1),
which you seemed focused on:
> You've been operating on a misunderstanding. There's nothing inherent in
> BIND that requires lib64. If the toolchain was modified to only look in
> lib on non-multilib x86_64 (as I had originally proposed in the first
> version of my revisions) then no packages compiled by that toolchain
> would require lib64 either - everything you build from source would be
> fine with only lib.
I brought BIND up (along with stuff like drivers after Bryan's comments about
games) as a possible concern for (1). Thank you for the clarification that (1)
is moot as long as the toolchain used to build BIND won't look in /lib64. And,
if that was obvious to you, and you felt it should have been more obvious to
me...Well, maybe next time. Either way, I appreciate the explanation, but more
importantly, the clarification.
Yet, that's not relevant to the ambiguity raised about (2). I pursued Andrew's
original statement because sometimes people forget to state what they do to
their systems that's different from release; or simply forget altogether. It
happens. BIND mattered to me, so I wanted to make sure that *I hadn't fubar'ed
anything*.
> Before berating others
Irony aside, I think it's fine to ask people to clarify, to prevent confusion
and save the time spent down rabbit holes. There's plenty of "here's how to
handle stuff better" on these forums, and I think it's perfectly fine, within
reason--whether applied to others or me. I suppose I could have taken this to
BLFS (to avoid this new rabbit-hole); I just didn't feel it was worth the
overhead of coping the thread to blfs-dev, explaining everything...blah blah
blah, since everyone involved was here.
* * *
Back to the unanswered question (2): Andrew, does your machine (pure-64 build)
have the LFS-7.0-release toolchain, and that machine has a working BIND (jail
or no-jail) without the /lib64 link?
Q
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
